The ‘Tarp of Shame’ and Its Lessons (Image Credits: Flickr)
Idle robots shrouded in tarps have emerged as a grim emblem for food manufacturers haunted by stranded automation investments.
The ‘Tarp of Shame’ and Its Lessons
Nick Fulop, Sales Director at Formic, shared a striking example during a recent webinar hosted by The Food Institute: a Connecticut client relegated trailers full of obsolete robotic equipment to storage.[1]
These failures stem from rigid systems that fail to adapt to shifting demands. Food processors face relentless pressures, including labor shortages and surging SKU complexity. Traditional automation often demands massive upfront overhauls, locking companies into hardware that quickly becomes irrelevant amid shorter lead times and seasonal spikes. The webinar highlighted how such missteps create not just financial losses but operational bottlenecks. Fulop emphasized that scaling production need not mean scaling headcount blindly.
Starting Small at the End of the Line
End-of-line tasks like case packing and palletizing offer the ideal entry point for automation, where repetitive motions drive high turnover and injury rates.
A phased deployment targets these high-impact areas first, integrating robots into existing workflows with minimal disruption. This approach boosts throughput consistency while addressing labor instability. Processors gain immediate returns without facility-wide changes. The strategy reframes automation around committed output metrics rather than fixed machinery. Flexibility ensures systems evolve with production needs, from five to ten cases per minute or altered product specs.
Wyandot Snacks Demonstrates the Model
Wyandot Snacks, a 90-year-old Ohio snack producer serving major brands, navigated rising demand and labor constraints through targeted automation.
CEO Jaap Langenberg described prioritizing repetitive tasks for robotic intervention, backed by service-oriented integration. The company avoided a full overhaul, instead building flexibility to handle multiple SKUs on tight timelines. This phased method supported ongoing operations while enhancing adaptability. Langenberg stressed the value of partnerships that maintain momentum during transitions. Wyandot’s experience underscores how modest starts yield scalable gains in a volatile market.
Flexibility as the Core Advantage
Fulop outlined Formic’s model: “At Formic, we have the flexibility to change robots… we’re able to swap that equipment out” as needs shift.The Food Institute webinar
This swappability prevents the fate of outdated gear. “We’re never going to be stuck with kind of an outdated piece of equipment,” Fulop added. Beyond speed, automation eases repetitive strain, freeing workers for quality oversight in tight labor markets. Real-time data aids bottleneck detection and uptime tracking. The result stabilizes operations against demand swings and portfolio changes.
| Approach | Risks | Benefits |
|---|---|---|
| Traditional | High obsolescence, major disruptions | Limited adaptability |
| Phased & Flexible | Low, incremental investment | Scalable, evolvable systems |
- Target end-of-line for quick ROI and labor relief.
- Prioritize swappable tech to dodge the ‘tarp of shame’.
- Phased rollouts enable adaptation in dynamic food markets.
Food manufacturers poised for modernization now have a blueprint: begin modestly, build flexibly, and scale confidently. This shift promises enduring efficiency amid industry flux. What challenges have you faced with automation? Share in the comments.
